Which is equivalent to the familiar restating of the Golden Rule: He who owns the gold makes the rules.
Certainly the prosecutions against Enron and more recently against Conrad Black would belie the theory that the wealthy can create their own rules of conduct. In each case, it was the "little people" who brought down the wealthy and powerful.
The point being that the QUANTITY of people who ascribe to an ethic or a code of conduct have power (it often takes a long time to wield that power by gathering a consensus opinion before it can be wielded) to achieve their desired goal.
Every successful political or cultural evolution comes about because enough people care deeply enough about a cause to achieve "critical mass" in exercising some power to achieve their goal. Critical mass does not have to be a majority if the majority are complacent and don't have a vested interest in the outcome.
A failed or aborted revolution simply means the movement didn't gain enough adherents to win over the opposition.
Revolutions can be bloody or bloodless, but they are never without pain and loss for one or both sides.
Similarly, imposing an ethical standard will not always win universal acceptance. Some will merely grumble and others may actively work to violate the ethical standards.